Ohio State Bar Meeting
Published: 2013-09
Total Pages: 82
Get eBook
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1905 edition. Excerpt: ...powers." As early as 1864, Judge Ranney held that the latter section prohibited amendments of the kind just referred to. (Atkinson et al. vs. M. & C. R. R. Co., 15 0. S., 21, J5; followed by State, ex rel, vs. Cincinnati, 20 O. 588., 18, 1870) From the commencement of our legislation under the present Constitution the General Assembly has established and adhered to another policy of limitation, which experience has shown to be of the most salutary character, and the wisdom of which will, I believe, be even more emphatically demonstrated in the future. I refer to the policy of confining corporations to a single purpose. R. S., Sec. 3285, provides that "corporations may be formed in the manner provided in this chapter, for any purpose for which individuals may lawfully associate themselves" etc. While organizations and organized effort are to be encouraged within reasonable limits, they should not be carried to the extent of encouraging monopolies detrimental to the interests of the people, and no wiser means of forestalling such combination has been devised than that of limiting corporations to a single purpose. Our Supreme Court has said in the case of State, ex rel, vs. Taylor, 55 O. S., 61, 67, 1896): "It will be noted that the word is 'purpose' not 'purposes.' Its1 8 use implies a limitation. This limitation must have been of design. It is a most wise and reasonable one. We cannot assume that the General Assembly would intentionally clothe corporations with capacity to unite all classes of business under one organization, as this would tend strongly to monopoly." With a few rigidly defined exceptions this policy has been adhered to, and should not be changed. This conclusion is not a recent one with me, but...